The Sex Myth: Why Everything We're Told Is Wrong (10 page)

One clue that the conclusions may not be evidence-based is to check the references cited. First, we look for appropriate numbers and types of citation. There are some things that do not require
corroboration in order to be presented as true. For example, you wouldn’t need a citation for the statement ‘World War II happened from 1939 to 1945.’ The evidence for this is
huge and is known to everyone.

When statements fall outside the domain of common knowledge, however, they should be cited. This is part of the transparency researchers aim for: readers can see the source
material and where the conclusions originated. Whether to cite – is it common knowledge, or isn’t it? – varies depending on the field and the audience.

Why does it vary? Well, if I was writing a paper for cancer epidemiologists and mentioned Richard Doll’s work connecting smoking and lung cancer, I wouldn’t reference it because most
epidemiologists have read it. If writing for a more general audience in a popular science book, though, I would include a reference – like this: [Doll R, Hill AB (1950). ‘Smoking and
carcinoma of the lung; preliminary report’.
BMJ
ii (4682): 739-48]. Even though most people know about the connection between smoking and lung cancer, they probably don’t know
who did that research, and might be interested in seeing for themselves.

For most of the Papadopoulos report, however, conclusions are made in absence of citations. For example: ‘Sexualised self-presentation could also mean that young people are exposing
themselves to danger . . .’ and ‘[I]t is widely accepted that exposure to content children are either emotionally or cognitively not mature enough for can have a negative
impact.’

It’s frightening stuff. And yet not one source is given for these assertions. There are a lot of studies quoted elsewhere – mainly studies of pornography and adults – but the
conclusions reached specifically about children reference no research publications. Quite simply, this is because direct research into the effects of sexualising imagery and goods on children does
not exist.

Experiments on adult reactions to sex (which the consultation relies on heavily) would face significant ethical restrictions if conducted on children. They mainly consist of exposing test
subjects to pornography, then administering a questionnaire, so you can see why the subject is hard to address. But to come to conclusions without even addressing this lack of source material is a
huge oversight.

The Home Office report leapfrogs across research areas and years, and yet still claims to be a reflection of current media culture. But with sections analysing music videos from twenty years
ago, the
report not only feels – but is – outdated. Technology has moved on from the one-way model of mass communication before the internet, and citing technology
antique to most of today’s teenagers is irrelevant.

Perhaps most importantly, the report contains a lot of policy recommendations but very little family and community input. Especially when it comes to child welfare, any changes in national
policy should be fully discussed in open forums. Government should not be producing recommendations without public input. And the policies must take into account any impact on families and young
people.

Perhaps inevitably, when the Conservative and Lib Dem coalition government came into power, they also commissioned a review on sexualisation. So, how does it compare to its predecessor of less
than a year earlier? Does it present the balanced approach many people hoped for?

The report from summer 2011,
Letting Children Be Children
, was authored by Reg Bailey and presents a number of recommendations about various types of media that children encounter.

Reg Bailey is head of the Mothers’ Union – a Christian think-tank and charity. At least Labour pulled in Linda Papadopoulos, who is at least an academic (albeit one whose area of
research interest has nothing to do with sexuality or childhood development). The commissioning of Reg Bailey does raise the question of whether there is an agenda at play.

That’s as it may be. You might disagree. Now to the content of the report:

On the surface, the Bailey/coalition review is a step up from the Papadopoulos/Labour review. In my view the quality of the writing is better, and it is stated throughout the
recommendations that parents, ultimately, are responsible for what their children (especially younger children) are exposed to. The acknowledgement of the role families have in responding to social
and commercial pressures is emphasised, and that is good.

However, I can’t help but feel that these are bones being thrown to the few remaining Conservatives whose leanings are more libertarian than authoritarian. Because, by and large, the
recommendations come with an implicit warning: if society does not experience material changes in the next eighteen months, government should step in.

As noted above, the report neither summarises nor attempts to address the question of what negative effect, if any, commercial and sexual imagery has on children. The only intellectually honest
answer to that question is that we don’t know. The report states: ‘Insufficient evidence to prove conclusively there is harm to children does not mean that no harm exists.’
That’s a little like saying, ‘Despite a lack of evidence that eating bread causes herpes, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.’ Technically true, but wildly unlikely.
How much bad law is written off the back of similarly lazy assumptions?

The report also tries to summarise potential parent responses in a way that reads as at best simplistic and at worst patronising. For example: ‘The world is a nasty place and children
should be unsullied by it until they are mature enough to deal with it.’ Not only are few parents actually likely to agree with this, it’s an assailable viewpoint on many levels and a
poor starting place for a supposed continuum of possible approaches.

The patronising continues throughout: ‘. . . We believe that a truly family-friendly society would . . . reinforce healthy norms for adults and children alike.’ Yet nowhere are these
‘norms’ defined, defended, or adequately outlined. And who on earth is ‘we’? Added to which, in
the section regarding proof of age to access internet
erotica, mention of the potential usefulness of ID cards slips in – it’s what some would consider an Orwellian nightmare.

The review recommends ‘modest’ clothing. But what is modest? I grew up in a hot, humid area next to the beach. Temperatures of 30 degrees in winter were not uncommon. As you might
imagine, bathing suits were perfectly acceptable in public. Seeing a woman of any age in short shorts, a bikini top, and flip flops even when off the beach was not only unremarkable, but unlikely
to strike anyone as sexual. And adopting clothing more ‘modest’ than shorts and a vest for little girls climbing trees in August would be tantamount to child abuse. Top-to-toe covering
would have all but guaranteed heat stroke. Transplant the same style of dressing to the UK, and the context is different. It looks inappropriate. It looks sexual, even if it isn’t.

Even using examples within the UK, different communities will have different standards of what is ‘modest’. To some, it means to-the-knee skirts. To others, it means to the ankle.
Some families consider natural hair colouring and long hair on girls to be appropriate and modest; others think girls’ hair should be covered in public, however it looks. And, in almost all
cases, what is meant by ‘modest’ only applies to girls. The tabloids can complain all they want, but not only is there no longer any one standard of appropriateness in this country,
there never has been. So, where is the line drawn? And who gets to decide where it is drawn?

It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that no one has defined sexualisation in a way that is agreed upon by all or even most people, and perhaps that’s where we should start. After
all, while most people consider pornography to have equally permeable lines, the law still has to define what does and does not fall under the consideration of obscene. So, there is a precedent for
pinning down exactly what we’re talking about here.

Another problem with vague terminology is how we define ‘children’. Products aimed at teens and pre-teens have different content from those aimed at younger children. Well, no duh,
you might be thinking, since obviously it would be patronising and insulting to expect a fourteen-year-old to enjoy the same media as a toddler.

And yet, the sexualisation discussion frequently invokes ‘children’ as if they’re a monolithic group across the entire age spectrum, when anybody can tell
you they’re not. What’s appropriate for a three-year-old? What’s appropriate for someone ten years older? It doesn’t take much imagination to see how crop tops and short
skirts on different age groups send different messages, and that parents and retailers should be aware of and sensitive to that.

One thing that stands out in reading the Bailey review is that the way in which the results are interpreted is very leading. For instance, on the question of advertising in public spaces, the
reviews claims that 40 per cent of parents had seen something they regarded as inappropriate or offensive.

Clearly, context is missing: the distinction between whether offensive adverts were seen once ever or every day is not made. And, of course, it would be just as easy to present the statistic the
other way round, and get a different interpretation entirely: 60 per cent of parents had
not
seen anything they regarded as offensive in public advertising. Ever. That’s actually
rather a lot.

In other sections, where the data disagree with the interpretation in a way that can’t easily be manipulated, the report takes a different tack. It presents the data
after
the
relevant recommendation. For example, the recommendation that lads’ mags should be removed from places children might see them comes several pages before the data showing that only 113 of 846
parents thought lads’ mags were of particular concern. That’s less than 15 per cent.

Of course, there is the question of how relevant these kinds of questions are to the public policy discussion. There is much talk lately of ‘evidence-based’ policy, but this kind of
questionnaire-reporting is nothing of the kind. When it comes to anything involving numbers, it seems that people accept market research more readily than peer-reviewed science.

Remember:
producing numbers is not the same as producing evidence.
Imagine if scientists were to discard the enormous weight of evidence for evolution, simply because a survey showed
‘most’ people didn’t agree with it! That’s not evidence-based policy, it’s mob rule.

That said, parents and children have been conspicuously absent
from previous reviews – save the one by the Scottish Executive. You have to wonder why, and the way the
Bailey/coalition report is written gives some clues. One of them might be in results like this: ‘Seventy-two per cent [of parents] think the overall level of regulation for television
programmes is about right.’ Parents, it seems, can be off-message with the agenda . . . and those opinions will likely be ignored, both now and eighteen months from now.

When combing the data in this report, it is clear that as many parents resent the idea of government intrusion into their family’s decisions as would potentially support it. ‘Giving
parents a say’ does not inevitably lead to internet providers automatically blocking porn; many parents would be uncomfortable with the idea. Unfortunately, such moderating opinions of
contributors to the consultation are ignored. Instead we are offered a swathe of suggestions that seem to have been crafted long before the consultation was even carried out.

So, it was to absolutely no one’s surprise that in October 2011 Prime Minister David Cameron announced he would be meeting with four big internet providers to discuss schemes for limiting
access to porn.

Early reports confirmed that the approach being sought was ‘opt-in’ – objectionable content turned off unless you ask for it and prove your age. If you’re a customer with
BT, Sky, Talk Talk, or Virgin, should you expect to be sending them a copy of your passport in the not-so-distant future?

Never mind that the idea of it being plausible, much less possible, to censor all offensive websites – and only those websites – is an article of faith bordering on superstition.

Interestingly, there were suggestions that the internet providers are not as on-board with Cameron and the Mothers’ Union as early reports suggested. One nameless source at an ISP was
quoted: ‘We all want to make the internet as safe as possible, but we can’t completely eliminate all risk – at least not without seriously affecting the vibrant and beneficial
nature of the internet. The primary responsibility lies with the parents, who have a responsibility to supervise how their children use the internet.’
⁴⁹

I use the word ‘interestingly’ because you would have had to be
a blind child in a deep cave with a blindfold on and your hands cut off not to detect this one
coming. No one thought that maybe this co-operation could be construed as colluding in censorship? Really?

The main objections to ISP-level blocking are: